The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has described the Court of Appeal's decision to acquit and discharge former Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) Chief Executive Officer, Sedina Christine Tamakloe-Attionu, as a politically motivated outcome that was carefully orchestrated.

The party insists that the ruling was not based on the merits of the appeal but formed part of a broader plan to overturn corruption-related convictions involving former National Democratic Congress (NDC) officials.

Addressing a press conference on Friday, July 31, the NPP's National Organiser, Henry Nana Boakye, said Thursday's judgment exposed what he described as a system designed to secure the freedom of politically connected individuals.

"What we witnessed yesterday is not an isolated judicial outcome. No. It was the unmasking of a system and ....we intend to expose this system and confront it squarely," he said.

Mr Boakye argued that the acquittal came despite what he described as overwhelming evidence against the former MASLOC boss, who had been convicted by the High Court on multiple counts, including stealing, causing financial loss to the state, money laundering and breaches of the Public Procurement Act.

• Read also: Court of Appeal acquits, discharges ex-MASLOC CEO Sedina Tamakloe-Attionu

He noted that the conviction followed a five-year trial during which the prosecution relied on documentary evidence, forensic audits and witness testimony.

"The prosecution's case was built on documentary evidence, forensic audits and sworn testimony. The convicting judgment of Her Ladyship Justice Afia Serwah Asare Botwe was very meticulous, count by count, dissection of fraud, fictitious disbursement, monies meant for struggling market women dissipated," he said.

According to the NPP National Organiser, no objective assessment of the trial record could conclude that the evidence against Madam Tamakloe-Attionu was weak.

"No serious lawyer or no serious Ghanaian who has read the judgment can honestly describe the evidence as anything other than overwhelming," he stated.

Mr Boakye also questioned how the former MASLOC CEO, who was convicted in absentia after leaving the country during her trial, could have her conviction overturned shortly after being extradited to Ghana.

"She fled the jurisdiction mid-trial and was convicted in absentia. A fugitive from the very justice system that has now embraced her and freed her, and yet within seven weeks of her forced return, the conviction has evaporated," he said.

He challenged the legal basis of the Court of Appeal's decision, saying Ghanaians deserved a full explanation.

"We ask the questions every Ghanaian is asking: On what principle of law does a mountain of evidence become a mirage? Which findings of fact were perverse? Which directions on the law were wrong? The Ghanaian people are entitled to answers," he added.

Mr Boakye maintained that the acquittal was neither accidental nor purely judicial.

"This was not an appeal succeeding on its merits. This was an outcome procured, packaged and well delivered. The NPP states without fear of contradiction; this acquittal was politically motivated, well-orchestrated and planned, and its timing on the eve of legal vacation, with public attention divided, is no coincidence and it's not an accident at all," he alleged.

He further dismissed the Attorney General's indication that the state would appeal the ruling at the Supreme Court, claiming the move was part of a predetermined strategy.

• Read also: Attorney General to challenge Sedina Tamakloe acquittal at Supreme Court; files for stay of execution

"And we hear that the Attorney General says he's going to go before the Supreme Court on appeal. It is all part of the well-choreographed plan," Mr Boakye said.

The Court of Appeal on Thursday overturned the High Court's earlier conviction of Madam Tamakloe-Attionu, who had been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment over offences related to the management of MASLOC funds.

Attorney General Dr Dominic Ayine has since indicated that the state intends to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.